If one moves a barrel that one is supposed to watch and it broke, the mishna depends the halacha upon why it was moved (for the sake of the item or for the shomer’s use of the item) and at what point it broke (while in the shomer’s hand or after it was returned) and was it a case where the owner had specified where the shomer should keep it. The gemara attempts to explain the logic behind the mishna and as it especially relates to something contradictory. One approach is to say that the mishna is composed of two different opinions. A different approach is to bring in an additional parameter not mentioned explicitly in the mishna – was it returned to its proper place or returned to a different location. within the latter interpretation there are 3 opinions about why the shomer moved the item – to use part of it (shilchut yad), to steal the whole thing or to borrow it? The difference between the first two opinions is based on a difference of opinion regarding the case of shlichut yad where one becomes responsible even for unanticipated damages – is it only if the item depreciates in value or even if there is no loss? Derivations from the repetition of the verses where shlichut yad is mentioned are brought as it seems unnecessarily mentioned both by a shomer chinam and a shomer sachar. 4 different derivations are brought.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.